Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
SFGTV 87
SFGTV2 42
KNTV (NBC) 12
CNNW 4
MSNBCW 4
CNBC 2
CNN 2
CSPAN 2
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 161
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 161 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will will place you under the consent calendar. all items constitute the consent calendar considered routine by the pla
chanukkah is a more important thing to do but i ask for other people's guidance on that. >> commissioner wu. >>i would also be supportive and emerging september 5 and december 5 and taking them off. i sprawt support commissioner borden's point and difficult to have every thursday. i'm not complaining exactly, but looking at the calendar from february to the end of may it's every single thursday so whether for 2013 or for the future i think it's just important to think about work load and just recognize there is no break. we get the packets at the end of thursday and work through the next thursday in addition to everyone's other job. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, when you accept the position on the planning commission it comes with the territory and we have a very important business that we handle and protects in san francisco get delayed enough from continuances of other issues and if we're not here it's a reason something gets delayed further and our economy to some degree is depended upon us and doesn't move to the board of supervisors until we hear it usually so i am prepared to m
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calend
the proceedings. i'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present boren, hillis, here moore hee sugaya here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1 for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12 case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye wu aye,. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there
on --. >> commissioner wu? >>> so on the issues discussed so far ... so i want to thank everyone on the work they have done on this plan over the many many years on the areas that we are still discussing, 3b was a grandfather for 35,011th street, i feel like i can be supportive of that. on the historic buildings, let me make sure to follow on the conversation we just had it's the salmon covered lot whether they have applied for the designation or not. >>> it's whether they are listed on the state or national registry. >> it's the additional step of requiring them to get listed. >>> i can support three or four it's procedural but i couldn't not support option five. child care and id that is five fine and i'm supportive of the plan after the charter amendment has passed after prop c passed and on the objective 1.5 so far i'm happy recognizing that there is a study happening on central corridor because there is but i don't know if i could split hairs like this but this language seems more supportive and pushing towards the plans being proposed for central corridor which i have a problem with and
this will be before you in the next three months that. concludes my report. >> thank you. commissioner wu. >> thank you. i wanted to ask on the tdif, i understand that supervisor wiener will be convening meets and you can give us updates on the broad direction of those meetings. >> we can do that, thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night and one item of note was a re-hearing request for building permit application dealing with glenn canyon park and before the hearing the request was withdrawn and the decision became final and the building permit is approved. just wanted to inform the commission on that and there are no other reports. >> commissioners, under item 814601 larkin street, informational, current status of the project design. >> good afternoon president fong and members of commission. i am going to keep my comments very brief here. the subject property was considered in june of 2010 and june of this year for proposal to demolish the church. this commission cited concerns no. 1 about the demolition of the existing church which is considered an historic resource under ceqa
's in front of us. so, i am delighted to just support it as it stands. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm also supportive of the legislation. but you have a question on the third recommendation, which is -- has to do with displacing existing residents. the way it was before was that there could never have been a residential unit there, but in the new code it will be no existing residential unit. so, at the time. is that consistent with the way the code treats that provision in other ncds, this notion of unit at the time versus the past? >> i think this is an unusual provision. i'm not sure that it's been adopted in other ncds. this is particularly crafted for this. it came about because of a brewery that wanted to establish in a garage on divisadero street and they couldn't operate on the second floor. so, they wanted to be able to allow them to expand to the second floor. there is also a concern that they don't want to encourage commercial uses on the second floor and displace residential units. so, that's why they put that in there as a caveat. >> that's my concern also. i'm okay with the wa
pratt has often testified before . on responsible uses of consumer data. ms. wu has been a staff attorney. she worked in the consumer protection division of the massachusetts attorney general's office in the asian average unit. she is a graduate of harvard law school and johns hopkins university. she is a contributing author to consumer credit and landing. welcome to both of you. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today. let me touch on a few highlights of the testimony we have already submitted. we talked a little bit about credit reports and whether consumers understand them or not but the strongest advocate for me is a consumer. when the bank does not know me, 40 million of us moved every year and a credit report is the bridge that tells my story. it is about my hard work and help pay my bills and the good decisions i make and personal responsibility. credit reports are an incredible indicator to others, everything else about you want someone to know about me. usaid, the other banks are so involved and supportive of credit reporting that they are involved i
. >> is there any further public comment? vice president wu? i'm done. >> student: okay seeing that public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner borden? >>> yeah, i think this is an excellent prolong and it's great to see project coming forward in the tran as it center design district and i love that this connects with the park and i it's design is hasp superior to it's initial outline design for us to review. i do understand that there was a a conversation around the disielgt entitlement period for this project and for the disciple district that there is a five year entitlement period and i just wanted to ask if this project was getting it as well. >> and so the standard entitlement for the project is three years and various entitlement and is so for various office allocations the know is 18 months and so as part of the is the televise it saying that you have three years for the office allocation but if you are an office prolong of fee 500 feet or more then you are allowed five years to commence the construction for the office allocation and is to this is not an office proj
, moore, aye, commissioner chair wu that mission fails commissioners. i'm sorry -- continuance because it's a majority i apologize so that hogs passes three to one with commissioner antonini voting against.. >> commissioners that will place you on your last calendar items we need to here from the drench yes because it was continued at this later hour we can put it later on the calendar next week and we can actually make it time specific as well and make all of the d r's time specific, that will be helpful and i timely think that let's go ahead and make this d r time specific that doesn't need to be other d r's as well. and other items -- the calendar -- [indistinguishable; everybody is talking at the same time]. understood then this will be the first item on the recognize calendar next week. okay and commissioner you are on your last recognizingly schedule calendar item 8.747 d. for 1830 to lead the way request discretionary review and this has been heard a couple of times and the public hearing does remain open. >>> okay so d r requestor has five minutes is that right? >>> i believ
. >> commissioner wu. >> is this project necessary or desirable? and i think fact there is no increase in number of units and that the increase is really about expansion of unit no. 11 from 1500-square-feet to over 4,000-square-feet. so i think in my estimation that is just not necessary or desirable and will not be supporting the project. >> commissioner antonini? >> excuse me, commissioner wu i wanted to clarify that the zone the rm-1 zoning would not allow any additional units on this property. it's at its max mulch maximum right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> to be necessary and desire, you don't have to necessarily add another unit. i have seen additions to single-family homes and multi-dwelling units that make it nice to live. i would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions, dropping the floor to floor height to 13' and take a 1.5 foot off of there and go with flat solar panels. i think the total floor to floor was 14.5, am i not wrong on that? >> i would just like an interpretation of this section. >> excuse me, that is okay. but the motion would be to ta
thuiopf isntreed d eixcd. goio- iddvs] hoin] o'at atheant ue fioo ay lefiutre li s!gowat.t seou co wus yomeo ris e, es, mt he ddf ni yon'ntlee yokeur dieae. ro tnttsmy opyot. aeacey. erd gee fioo rengbergitthoflaies. cu.ates aio setyea yn y . u'eve o he asomshpred ce ayo. moue . sc h ha at.ti ah mat'. e .atover yoreuts? t anngri nowo 'st t. bsh ueicasud ey aldt. unatessiti e g psh. srs t re ered aye isveit athed dn. w 'sregeei thss couthsceh ar r. s. runsle dn tri atheorhele int peopre runser ediric noane irualprrion le soinu reit ousa, he iatt tes.. thavurrs e are s s ca irttl s g thfoar niidanea. o ar stwin fr s. ardee st h'thsoathashs in. loananthpothu.it noerty ca. rnnaeaonr ar.ths tosli. thharnfo ea ane iasconrk? hateesmoncd dedg runs sg pe. du k? i k e arin d [sngved s w ina.. whwit m onllhound u'e ino!ckthond ro tre weai ved s as thnyererir houn m uvlegeu thh tist s hays reia hounpls d c, veur aindl icurir ang u yoha ita, t 1opotir hounr lenot. ll fouee anfoiot. dore hto veli, us dohaougs ro reed l anw y ro cowihindte g culdor ceo fitem d t ghimiedn ro ertr
? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of ours with specific reference to the trigger date and the period of time during which the appeals could occur. >> okay. this is a completely different motion. it was in case the supervisor chooses to move forward. so, we're disregarding the fact that the supervisor can move forward on the legislation and we're going to draft a new resolution simply requesting -- >> it's understood that if he decides to move forward without taking into consideration, that's his province because it's an administrative action. >> okay, my apologies. i misunderstood. >> [inaudible]. [laughter] >> thank you. then the motion would be to engage -- to draft a res
that would do any good. i think the -- several supervisors including supervisor wu and others have voiced the opinion that -- that the supervisor really needs to do more outreach. i kind of argued against that earlier today. [laughter] >> you know, i'm not consistent. so, you know, i think we need to at least encourage him or recommend that he do that, especially given the number of groups that have got their letters together for the first hearing that we had. and i know there is a historic preservation commission has had a hearing and we have not had the benefit of input yet. and they are holding yet another hearing. * of their input yet. i know they continued the item them self. >> december 5th, commissioner. >> okay. >> maybe it would be helpful just for you and the public. i know you are on the e-mail what is the future plan hearings for this one. >> right. >> this was introduced in october 16th of this year. normally as administrative code we would have 30 days to weigh in. that's why we did try to schedule hearings very quickly. the hpc has already had hearings, on november 11th an
.m.regardless of whether or not there is life entertainment. thank you. >> commissioner wu. i'm supportive eh that motion. i think i would like to learn more about the role of entertainment commission and their ability to enforce, either next time there is a case that deals with noise. because i think they have more capacity than the planning commission. >> someone came from the entertainment commission and gave a presentation and so i am sure we could ask for them to come back. >> call for the question please. >> >> (roll call ) is moved, commissioners that motion passes 6-1. >> commissioners, you have been sitting here since 10:30 in the morning and we have three more items and i ask if you want a 10-minute break or keep going here? >> 5-minute break. all right we're going
. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. i'm supportive of the idea of getting this baseline. i think when we were considering the student housing legislation there were only some best guesses at numbers that give us the full information we needed. i agree also obviously we should try to get it all on the same code. so, maybe planning department staff can work with supervisor kim's office on that. also i e-mailed ms. hayward on. this i think we should also try to align it with the housing inventory report that the department already puts out. so we don't have all these separate reports, that we have all the information of housing in one location. and i think that's -- oh, and supportive of the modifications that the department has put out today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. yes, in response to some mention of the imps, that's really very calorickvy -- clonky way to get at student housing. doing it in the inventory is great. [speaker not understood]. i think extending it to mid january we're going to get the same arguments that we always get, that this legislation was pushed
and a reduction of what we have had in our code for parking. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. i'm also supportive. i wanted to clarify with staff what we needed to put in the motion. you said [speaker not understood]. >> yes, thank you very much, commissioners. -- commissioner. there were two conditions included in the draft motion that should not have been. the reference is to open space required under section 138, which is, you know, shorthand what you would think of as the publicly accessible private open space that is associated with an office project. that is not applicable here. the only technically the only requirement here that is being met in part by the plaza is for a 20 foot wide connection between tehama and oscar park. it just happens that 25-foot wide pathway if you will happens to be occurring in the context of a larger plaza being offered by the project sponsor. technically that area is not required open space. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, also, mr. guy, i think we have an errata sheet also. there was a mention of a shadow that does not exist w
for pedestrians who might be walking along in there. >> commissioner wu. >> what what the interaction with the project sponsor on this project and how did we get to the point the project sponsor worked with the department four years but now there is a suggestion to disapprove? >> the reason is that when we send out notice of building permit -- incomplete submittal and the applicant did not respond immediately. that's why there is a lapse in time. >> and i might add, commissioner, there had been communication with the project sponsor. and we had expressed -- the department expressed concern about this is a potential infill and our inability to support that. after doing research and the history of the property, previous applications had come through, they had -- the original proposal was presented to senior management and they came back with some alternatives. we essentially told them if they were continuing to pursue the project, that's fine. but we insist that they put their best foot forward. whatever we were taking to the commission, even though we did not support the project, that
recreation and park and plan commissioner cindy wu is also here. thank you, cindy. [ applause ] my last big thank you is to you. is to the friends of joe dimaggio playground and the neighbors here who have fought and fought and fought. the giants actually opened up at at&t park in 2000 and it took 12 years or it took 10 years for our first world championship, right? it's taken ten years to get to this spot right now. thank you friends of joe dimaggio playground and thunk lizzy and thank you all for your persistence and thank you for putting the community interest above your self interests because quite frankly, the kids are in college now since the project started this. is an amazing inspired project and thank you to all of you for making our city great. yes on b! [ applause ] >> thank you phil, what he didn't complete the story we go out to school and do reads and do the poet in the pocket once a year. our next leader gives many, many hours of dedicated service to leading the commission, leading the vision for the library, not only the branch library improvement program, but the array
. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] >> good morning and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services committee. i am sean elsbernd and i am joined by christina olague and we will be shortly joined by ms. carmen chu. mr. clerk, can you read item one. >> item one is issuance of on sale beer and wine license for mikhail brodsky for pectopah, llc located at 748 innes avenue. >> thank you mr. clerk. to the department. >> [inaudible] >> hold on one second. turn your mic on. >> thank you. >> testing. good morning supervisor supervisors. i am from the san francisco police department. they have filed an application with the city and on cite beer premseses for 748 innes avenue. for the purpose of this hearing the california department of alcohol and beverage control s
was and how people were drawn to him. chancellor wu wrote when chris was appointed ambassador, friends, professional acquaintances contacted me to encourage me to reach out to him. he was so well thought of. i sent a hand-written card and to my surprise he returned the correspondence with his own handwritten note. that would be very much like chris. he appreciated and enjoyed interactions with people. in fact, our friend chris highland put it very eloquently when he said, chris was the finest among us. more than his obviously charms, he was a man of substance and humility. at parties, dinners and gatherings he spent little times talking about himself and his accomplishments. only when he was forced to. instead he asked people about their lives, their views, their accomplishments. he always focused on ther people rather than himself. this is true and never changed. i believe it was central to his success in washington and around the world. for all of us who came to know him it was such pleasure and a privilege. [applause] >> i am the lead ambassador before and after the revolution. on b
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 161 (some duplicates have been removed)